Advertisement

Differences in Reading Level and Commercial Information Content in Pharmacy-Provided Health Information Printouts

  • Philip D. RollandEmail author
Article

Abstract

Objectives

To determine whether the reading level of health information printouts and the inclusion of commercial information varied in a statistically significant manner in printouts obtained from a retail pharmacy.

Methods

A total of 31 different health information printouts were evaluated for reading level using the Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability analysis. Chi-square was used to determine differences in the presence or absence of four commercial content parameters: mention of a health organization, mention of a manufacturer, mention of a drug, or mention of a dose.

Results

A single-sample t-test revealed a statistically significant difference in reading level among the health information printouts, t(30) = 47.91, p < 0.000, two-tailed. Chi-square analysis found no significant difference in whether a health organization, χ2(1, n = 31) = 1.58, p = 0.21, or a manufacturer, χ2 (1, n = 31) = 2.61, p = 0.11, were mentioned. There was a statistically significant difference in whether a drug, χ2(1, n = 31) = 9.32, p = 0.002, or a dose, χ2(1, n = 31) = 20.16, p = 0.000, was mentioned.

Conclusions

The fact that reading levels and the mention of a drug or dose was significantly different among the printouts suggests that these were not random events. It is thought that printouts, which have strong commercial overtones, are prepared in a manner to influence consumers to seek these products from their health care provider and not to strictly provide information on a particular health condition or disease state.

Key Words

Commercial information Health information Literacy Readability analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    United States Department of Education. 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey: Overview.http://www.nces.ed.gov/nadlits/naal92/overview.html. (Accessed March 11, 1999)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Davis TC, Crouch MA, Wills G, Miller S, Abdehou DM. The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. J Family Practice. 1990;31(5):533–538.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis TC, Mayeaux EJ, Fredrickson D, Bocchini JA, Jackson RH, Murphy PW. Reading ability of parents compared with reading level of pediatric patient education materials. Pediatrics. 1994;93(4):460–468.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jackson RH, Davis TC, Bairnsfather LE, George RB, Crouch MA, Gault H. Patient reading ability: An overlooked problem in health care. Southern Med J. 1991;84(10):1172–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leichter SB, Nieman JA, Moore RW, Collins P, Rhodes A. Readability of self-care instructional pamphlets for diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 1981;4(6):627–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    McNeal B, Salisbury Z, Baumgardner P, Wheeler FC. Comprehension assessment of diabetes education program participants. Diabetes Care. 1984;7(3):232–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Meade CD, Byrd JC. Patient literacy and the readability of smoking education literature. Am J Public Health. 1989;79(2):204–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Morrow GR. How readable are subject consent forms? J Am Med Assoc. 1980;244(1):56–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Powers RD. Emergency department patient literacy and the readability of patient-directed Materials. Ann Emergency Med. 1988;17(2):124–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ryan-Haddad A, Bramble JD, Lee B, Mucker A, Kellner V. OTC product labels and older patients. U.S. Pharmacist. January 2000:38–47.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Smith S. Readability testing health information. http://www.prenataled.com/story9.htm. (Accessed February 17, 1999)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marinac JS. Outpatient Cardiology. In Burke JM, Coonce SL, DeYoung GR, Hak LJ, Kuehl PG, Marinac JS, Mays-Holland TA, McMullin T, Oles KS, Smith CL. (Eds.) 2000 Update in Therapeutics. Kansas City, MO: American College of Clinical Pharmacy; 2000: 334.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Drug Information Association, Inc 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Hot SpringsUSA

Personalised recommendations